BuzzerBeater Forums

point 1 agreed time should not be the mainfactor of a game (then it would be like work), different strategies to improve would be the best, just to add, a team with a good transfer policy should and will have some advantages...

point 2, i actually want the same, all aspects should be important and i think if you use an good tactic you should be able to beat every team, as i said before i can adjust myself and if most of the people dont like it and think it should be limited and they probably do it somehow...

the easiest would be people check the prices and the transferhistory before they buy that would be the best limit to this issue.

I do agree that a team with good transfer policy should have advantages. That is why my preferred proposition is to limit the number of transfers allowed. It would allow those with skill in the market to still make some money there and use it to their advantage,but not to the point where it makes other aspects of the game secondary.

I prefer this method to ones that take money away. A profitable deal can still be profitable this way.

I don't though agree that day traders stabilize the market. Look at it this way. Every player that might be a good deal is bid on by day traders up to the point that the player is no longer a good deal. What this means is that people looking for players longer term have no choice but to bid past the point where day traders stop. This his the exact effect of driving up prices because this essentially puts the starting price, for those who want a permanent player, at a rate already above what would be considered a good deal.

Since this now becomes the starting point then the price people have to pay for players grows, and a this grows the price acceptable by day traders grows along with it, pushing it steadily higher.

Compare it to real estate. Take a city with low market values which has begun to improve itself. As soon as the potential for profit appears speculators immediately begin buying everything up. This is the exact process which creates enormous inflation because other people cannot get a deal any more and have to pay at least market value for every property. A cities real estate values can triple in 3-5 years because of speculators, who do basically exactly what day traders are doing.

Again though...I'm not saying it is wrong to profit from trades...it just needs a ceiling so that it doesn't outweigh other aspects of the game.

I don't though agree that day traders stabilize the market. Look at it this way. Every player that might be a good deal is bid on by day traders up to the point that the player is no longer a good deal. What this means is that people looking for players longer term have no choice but to bid past the point where day traders stop. This his the exact effect of driving up prices because this essentially puts the starting price, for those who want a permanent player, at a rate already above what would be considered a good deal.

On the other hand, if you put yourself in the shoes of the person who is selling the player, bidding a player up guarantees them that they will get fair price on their sale.

There are two things that you're missing: first, if we assume there is such thing as a fair market price, daytraders cannot bit more than, say 70-80 percent of it if they want to make any profit from the resale. Second, I don't see how buying a player for 80-100% of its market price can be considered a bad deal.

Those sound like parts of the same thing to me.

Sure the seller gets more as the market goes up, but in a steadily rising market it means nothing to get more because you can do less with your money. This leaves us back in the original scenario of playing the market becoming the dominant strategy.

Your numbers of 70-80% and 80-100% demonstrate the problem exactly. In a stable market product is sold at a relatively constant rate. There can be surges, and fluctuations, but those don't really matter at this point.

When day traders will bid up to 80% on a player 80% becomes the starting point for regular bidders. This limits the number of players that will be sold, as permanent players, below the 100% threshold because once an auction starts there is only 20% of value left to go before you have crossed it. That value you gave of 80% is the key. If day traders stopped at even 50% the entire scenario might be different, but you can hardly ask someone to limit himself that way, it wouldn't be practical.

If the number of trades allowable is limited then less players will be pushed automatically to that 80% point and the market has a chance to level off at values nearer to what supply/demand ratios would predict.

In short: If I want a player, I know that traders will autmatically push his price to 80% of what I should expect to pay for him. Once that point is reached I have to then bid against any one else who wants that player. This invariable pushes prices over the threshold.

Markets trend in the direction they are already moving without outside influences. If players were regularly available at 80-100% of market then prices would be trending downwards. Instead they are rising, and this is because of inflation due to massive market speculation (ie: day trading) pushing prices up to at least 110-120% and at times even higher.

No, buying a player at 80-100% would not be a bad deal, but that doesn't happen because the regular bidding starts so high.

I didn't say players are available at 80% of their market price. This a logical nonsense, since market determines the prices. All I am pointing out is that traders will always drop out at 80% of the price, since they can't make any profit. The final sale price is then determined by how much buyers are willing and able to pay.

Traders cannot 'push the prices above the threshold' this way. Not everyone lists at 0. Plenty list at the market rate. Plan and simple, if someone is willing and able to pay more than you for a certain player on a regular basis, you have underestimated the market price.

And no, inflation is not because of of 'intense market speculation'. BB is 3 seasons old. Prices are still in flux: this is partly because teams are accumulating wealth, and because they are still developing players.

Hi Charles,
I actually like the first 3 proposals (more or less in the same order you wrote them down).
Number 1 is my favourite, cause it still allows the trading but reduces a lot its impact on the gameplay. Number 2 is also good, but if it's not well implemented it could lead to big problems to teams in bad financial conditions. Number 3 cannot really stand by itself, cause money are usually stronger than teamspirit; also, after a couple of season of trading without caring about results, one could have really a lot of money. Number 4 is a very bad idea, and i'm not gonna take it into consideration ;-)
The others are more or less all related to a "compare transfer" feature, which in my opinion is not easy at all to implement and could bring people to confusion.

I understand your reason to keep a little bit of trading, and i appreciate a lot your efforts to try to improve this game with the community. Keep it like this ;-)

Last edited by ringo™ at 3/10/2008 9:06:26 PM

3 followed very closely by 2....

these to me are logical and necessary steps... new players do take time to adapt and certain departures will naturally cause fellow team mates to lose enthusiasm.

4. ;)

1,2,3 i dont care if it makes people happy just do it...

5. a transfer compare isnt a bad thing if you can get something like this working, it would help people a lot...

6 and 7 doesnt sound good to me and i think it wont help atm coz there is many high skilled individual players which probably hard to trace in this.

8. im sorry i got no ideas.

ps. i dont waste any time in the forum no more to make as much profit as i can before any changes happen ;)

have you heard of the game musical chairs?

when the music stops..... dont be the last man standing...

3) Just implement it... it seems strange to have it for NT and not for club.... i know its to stop the NT manager just browsing thru everyones roster but at least for club it has some meaning and logic that applies to everyone...

I am against transfer compare and i would imagine this is very offputting... when you have played the game a while you know what you think is a fair price to pay.... giving people a guideline during periods of inflation/deflation is not going to help.

Encourage people to watch the trends of players more in the tutorial or rules dont just slap prices on them unless you can come up with a very accurate and far superior tool to the HT nonsense.

I think those taxes are ridiculously high, they would kill the transfer market.

How about making it so that you cannot transfer list a player until he has been in your squad for 6 weeks?

Also, I think players should be cup-tied - if they have played for any team (in any country) in the cup, they should not be allowed to represent other teams in the cup at a later date...